JUDGMENT : ANIL VERMA, J. This appeal is arising out of the judgment and order of conviction dated 16-2-1999 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Garoth, District Mandsaur in Sessions Trial No. 261/93, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 8/18 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”) and sentenced to 12 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rs. One Lakh). In lieu of payment of fine amount, appellant has been directed to undergo 2 years additional R.I. 2. As per the prosecution story, on 13-3-1993 SHO Lokendra Singh Tomar got discreet information regarding illegal transportation of contraband by the present appellant Abdul Rafiq, Rama Don and Jagdish. Acting upon the said information police party reached on the spot and during the search of house of the appellant, 250 gram solid opium and 40 gram opium in liquid form has been recovered from his possession. After completing the necessary formalities, police arrested the appellant and registered FIR against him for the offence under section 8/18 of the NDPS Act and after the due investigation, charge sheet was filed. 3. The appellant/accused was charged for the offence under section 8/18 of the NDPS Act. He abjured his guilt and taken the defence that he has been falsely implicated in this matter. During the trial the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited the documents Ex.P/1 to P/34 in order to bring home the charges against the appellant. Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Court below has not considered the material aspect of the case that the mandatory provision of law namely section 42, 50 and 57 of NDPS Act have not been complied with and except the testimony of the police officer, no independent witness has supported the case of the prosecution. The judgment of the Court below suffers from illegalities and infirmities. It was not established that the house from where the contraband article is alleged to have been recovered, belongs to the appellant or it was in his possession. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant. The judgment of the Court below suffers from illegalities and infirmities. It was not established that the house from where the contraband article is alleged to have been recovered, belongs to the appellant or it was in his possession. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant. Hence, he prays that the judgment passed by the trial Court be set aside and the appellant be acquitted. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for rejection of the appeal by submitting that the reasoning and finding given by the Court below are based upon the material available on record and not liable to be interfered with. 6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the impugned judgment as well as the entire record. 7. Investigating officer Lokendra Singh Tomar (PW-14) stated that on 13-3-1993 he got discreet information regarding the illegal transportation of contraband by the appellant Abdul Rafiq, Rama Don and Jagdish. Acting upon the said information he prepared a Panchnama (Ex.P/13) and reached on the spot and recovered some opium from the possession of Rama Don and Jagdish. Then he went to the house of the appellant and after preparing the Panchnama (Ex.P/5 and P/6) he made a search and recovered 250 gram opium and another 40 gram opium in liquid form from the possession of the appellant through seizure memo (Ex.P/9). He arrested the appellant by arrest memo (Ex.P/10) and registered the FIR (Ex.P/13). After the sampling process, he had sent a sample to FSL, Sagar for its chemical examination. 8. But the witnesses of sampling, seizure, panchnama and other proceedings Dhanji (PW-7) has not supported the case of the prosecution. Other independent witness Shyamlal was not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, it is clear that no independent witness has supported the statement of investigating officer Lokendra Singh Tomar (PW-14). 9. So far as the reliability of sole witness Investigating Officer Lokendra Singh Tomar (PW-14) is concerned, he admits in his cross-examination that he has not prepared any Panchnama regarding the information given by Rama Don and Jagdish that they have brought opium from the house of the appellant. 9. So far as the reliability of sole witness Investigating Officer Lokendra Singh Tomar (PW-14) is concerned, he admits in his cross-examination that he has not prepared any Panchnama regarding the information given by Rama Don and Jagdish that they have brought opium from the house of the appellant. He also admits that he has not prepared any Panchnama for not assigning any good reason why the search warrant was not obtained before the search of the house of appellant and he has not apprised the appellant of his legal right under which he can require presence of gazetted officer or magistrate for the purpose of search. Therefore, for want of compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, the search and the whole investigation has been violated. 10. As per the prosecution, the alleged opium was recovered from the house of the appellant. Prosecution has examined several witnesses to prove the ownership and possession of the said house. Assistant Lineman Prabhulal (PW-1) categorically stated in his statement that he does not know about the residence of the accused. Lineman Gopal Solanki (PW-2) also deposed in the same manner and he has been declared hostile, but he has not supported the case of the prosecution. Kamla Bai (PW-5) and Laxminarayan (PW-6) have also turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Although Registrar Ramgopal Sharma (PW-4) stated that appellant has purchased the plot admeasuring 0.004 Aare through registered sale deed (Ex.P/2) from Kamla Bai, but Ramgopal Sharma (PW-4) also admits that he does not know who possesses the aforesaid plot and who was in actual possession of the aforesaid plot at the time of incident. Harishankar (PW-11) has also turned hostile and categorically stated that he does not know where is the house of appellant. Junior Engineer Shankarlal Soni (PW-13) only deposed that an electricity connection has been given in the name of the appellant and he has issued certificate (Ex.P/29), but in the cross-examination he admits that he does not know that appellant Abdul Rafiq resides in that house or not. Therefore, in the light of evidence given by all these prosecution witnesses, prosecution has failed to prove that the aforesaid house was of ownership and possession of the appellant. 11. Therefore, in the light of evidence given by all these prosecution witnesses, prosecution has failed to prove that the aforesaid house was of ownership and possession of the appellant. 11. In such case, recovery officer is required to seal the sample on the spot with his personal seal under section 55 of the NDPS Act. In this case Malkhana incharge does not say that compliance of section 55 of the NDPS Act was done. 12. Therefore, we find that there is no independent corroboration of alleged recovery. The independent witness Dhanji (PW-7) turned hostile and other independent witness of recovery namely Shyamlal was not examined. In a serious offence like this in which minimum sentence is prescribed, it is desirable that the prosecution case about the recovery should be supported by some independent witness. Without slight test of independent corroboration, it is not safe to convict a person in such a serious case. 13. Hence, we hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. Thus, the conviction of the appellant/accused cannot be sustained. 14. For the above reasons, we accept the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused for the offence under section 8/18 of NDPS Act. The judgment dated 16-2-1999 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Garoth, District Mandsaur in Sessions Trial No. 261/93 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted for the charge under section 8/18 of NDPS Act. Fine amount, if deposited by the appellant, shall be refunded to him. Appellant is on bail, his bail and surety bonds stand discharged.